1. Developing viability criteria for threatened Puget Sound steelhead Jeff Hard and Jim Myers (for the PSSTRT) Conservation Biology Division NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center Seattle, WA 98112 West Coast Steelhead Management Meeting Redmond, OR 9-11 March 2010 interim ^

2. Outline Status of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS Recent changes Technical Recovery Team (TRT) objectives The TRT’s approach to identifying viability criteria Identifying DIPs & MPGs Assessing viability of DIPs, MPGs, and the DPS Run type diversity; residency and anadromy Outlook

3. Puget Sound steelhead status reviews Originally reviewed in 1996; ESA listing not warranted 2 nd status review in response to September 2004 petition completed June 2007 DPS listed as threatened under ESA Several populations continue steep declines despite harvest restrictions Low productivity; poor FW/marine habitat conditions; use of non-local/ derived hatchery stocks; depressed LH diversity

4. Outline Status of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS Recent changes Technical Recovery Team (TRT) objectives The TRT’s approach to identifying viability criteria Identifying DIPs & MPGs Assessing viability of DIPs, MPGs, and the DPS Run type diversity; residency and anadromy Outlook

5. East Puget Sound steelhead Tolt SSH P(extinction) Years Abundance QET = 50 Green WSH QET = 50

6. General RoE patterns for Puget Sound steelhead Some but not all northern PS populations are at relatively low risk of extinction Populations in central and southern PS (except Green WSH) are generally smaller and most are declining Hood Canal and SJF populations are small and at high risk, although some have been relatively stable Status of many South Sound/Kitsap Peninsula independents and most SSH populations unclear Of concern: Most central and SPS populations, many Hood Canal, all SJF populations

7. Outline Status of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS Recent changes Technical Recovery Team (TRT) objectives The TRT’s approach to identifying viability criteria Identifying DIPs & MPGs Assessing viability of DIPs, MPGs, and the DPS Run type diversity; residency and anadromy Outlook

8. Technical Recovery Team (TRT) When a population(s) under NOAA/USFWS jurisdiction is petitioned for listing under ESA, a Biological Review Team (BRT) of federal scientists determines its risk of extinction—the basis for a listing decision Viable Salmonid Populations (VSP; McElhany et al. 2000) criteria: - Abundance, productivity, spatial structure, diversity A TRT develops biological recovery (“viability”) criteria to guide recovery planning for listed unit A TRT has two primary charges: - Identify demographically independent populations (DIPs) and major population groups (MPGs) within the ESU/DPS - Develop viability criteria for these units and the ESU/DPS

9. Outline Status of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS Recent changes Technical Recovery Team (TRT) objectives The TRT’s approach to identifying viability criteria Identifying DIPs & MPGs Assessing viability of DIPs, MPGs, and the DPS Run type diversity; residency and anadromy Outlook

10. Demographically Independent Populations & Major Population Groups DIPs < MPGs < DPS Data are usually limiting, and TRTs have had to rely on indirect measures to identify DIPs and MPGs TRTs have typically used simple decision rules to evaluate these factors – e.g., spawning populations separated by some amount – e.g., elevation/gradient/hydrograph differs substantially between areas Assessment of historical populations a key element of identifying DIPs and MPGs

11. DIP checklist Tier 1 – Historical presence – Historical abundance – Demographic independence Tier 2 (proxies) – Recent abundance Intrinsic potential or other habitat based estimate of potential productivity – Basin size/drainage area – Geographic isolation – Genetic distance – Barriers physical seasonal – Ecological separation – Temporal isolation Tier 3 (species surrogates) Genetic distance Geographic isolation

12. Neighbor-joining tree C-S-E distances 13 μsat loci Includes 2008 and 2009 collections East Hood Canal West Hood Canal Strait of Juan de Fuca South/Central Sound North Sound

13. Historical WDF steelhead catch data

14. Dendrogram of Gower SI of habitat characteristics High precip, snow pack (and SSH) Wider, more spawn- able area SJF Rain dominated, generally smaller

16. How can we combine these data in a way that helps to identify DIPs? Recent demographic independence (PD) Ecophenotypic differences (EP) Ecological distinctiveness (ED) Biological distinctiveness (BD) Population independence (IP) Population dynamics (PD.1) W W Migration rates (PD.2) Habitat characteristics (EP.2) Life history traits (EP.1) W Genetic distinctiveness (GD) Geographic isolation (GI) W W Stream gradient, etc. (EP.2.A...) W Run timing, etc. (EP.1.A...) W Tag recoverie s, etc. (PD.2.A...) W Adult number, etc. (PD.1.A...) W Geograph ic distance, etc. (GI.1.A...) W Genetic distance, etc. (GD.1.A... ) W (from a concept by K. Currens, NWIFC)

17. Why a Decision Support System (DSS) framework? “Fuzzy logic” system systematically incorporates degree of uncertainty into decision making Almost any relevant criterion can be considered Employs truth membership functions to evaluate the degree to which propositions are true Uses logical operators (e.g., “AND”, “UNION”, “MEDIAN”, “AVERAGE”) and weighting factors to combine criteria Provides a transparent, systematic, and repeatable framework to reach decisions supported by the available data

18. A truth membership function False Uncertain True “Population will persist = FALSE” “Population will persist = TRUE” Truth value for proposition 1-P(extinction) “I am completely uncertain whether the population will persist”

19. Some DSS DIP model inputs Historic populations identified from WDF steelhead catch statistics (1946-1970) and habitat-based intrinsic potential estimates Minimum historic size (e.g., > 500 natural spawners/gen) Minimum suitable habitat (e.g., > 20K m 2 IP habitat) Recent demographic data estimated from spawner escapements and selected age structure data (1970s-present) Geographic distances, hydrographic data, and habitat features estimated from GIS data layers Genetic distances based on pairwise F ST values from 13 microsatellite loci

20. Matrix of potential PS steelhead DIPs (Central/South Puget Sound WSH) Lk Washington WSHGreen WSHMS Puyallup WSHNisqually WSHEast Kitsap WSH Lk Washington WSH-0.486420.1323190.4904630.301333 Green WSH-0.486420.1648130.1683090.056166 MS Puyallup WSH0.1323190.164813-0.178016-0.002167 Nisqually WSH0.4904630.168309-0.1780160.1435 East Kitsap WSH0.3013330.056166-0.0021670.1435 DRAFT

21. Outline Status of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS Recent changes Technical Recovery Team (TRT) objectives The TRT’s approach to identifying viability criteria Identifying DIPs & MPGs Assessing viability of DIPs, MPGs, and the DPS Run type diversity; residency and anadromy Outlook

22. ESU viability: All MPGs must be viable MPG viability 1 viable population from each major genetic and life-history group. 2-4 viable populations Phenotypic and genotypic variation at population level Distribution of spawning aggregations Suggested population size range Historical Abundance SimSam Habitat-based PVA (EDT) Catastrophe ESU: Overall risk with distribution of pops and life histories in each MPG Pop: % of affected by given catastrophe Puget Sound Chinook salmon

23. DSS viability criteria: population stratum/MPG entire ESU/DPS PP Adult dist’n Hatchery influence Abundance Juvenile dist’n PS PF PD

24. Some DSS viability model inputs Abundance and productivity estimated from spawner escapements and available age structure data (1940s-present) Risk of reaching QET estimated with simple PVA models Analysis limited to winter-run fish (WSH) So far, analysis limited to anadromous fish For future: incorporate iteroparity and relative abundance of resident fish as VSP factors

25. DSS applied to PS steelhead viability: MPG and DPS levels MPGMPMDMFMS DSDP Strait of Georgia0-0.2681-0.036 Whidbey Basin0.93-0.02910.221 Central/South Puget Sound0-0.3020.689-0.075 -0.8050.093 Hood Canal0-0.340-0.173-0.312 Strait of Juan de Fuca0-0.316-0.876-0.861 …………..MPG level…………..…..DPS level….. Persistence Diversity Functionality Sustainability Persistence DRAFT

26. Outline Status of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS Recent changes Technical Recovery Team (TRT) objectives The TRT’s approach to identifying viability criteria Identifying DIPs & MPGs Assessing viability of DIPs, MPGs, and the DPS Run type diversity; residency and anadromy Outlook

27. VSP: Diversity Summer-run life history Historically at least 12 wild SSH populations existed in DPS In 2002 SaSI, 16 SSH populations were identified as extant Most of “unknown” status; only 2 considered “healthy” (Tolt, SF Skykomish [non-native]) 7 are monitored: Canyon Cr., Skagit, Snohomish, Tolt, Stillaguamish, Green, Elwha Estimates of escapement available for only Tolt River SSH in northern Puget Sound

28. Smolts produced by resident spawners may be critical in supporting steelhead productivity during periods of low marine survival VSP: Diversity residency & anadromy Proportion smolts from resident spawners Marine survival

29. Outline Status of the Puget Sound steelhead DPS Recent changes Technical Recovery Team (TRT) objectives The TRT’s approach to identifying viability criteria Identifying DIPs & MPGs Assessing viability of DIPs, MPGs, and the DPS Run type diversity; residency and anadromy Outlook

30. TRT to identify draft viability criteria for Puget Sound steelhead in 2010 NOAA status review update due in 2010 Recovery planning is underway Additional analyses planned: Genetic samples Finer-scale intrinsic potential estimates Archived abundance and life history data Puget Sound Chinook salmon gap analysis

31. FIN Extra slides after this point

32. Steelhead IP habitat rating metrics Intrinsic Potential (Interior Columbia River parameters) Unconfined Stream Habitat Rating (valley width > 4x bank full width) Stream width 0 - 25 m25 - 50 m> 50 m Stream gradient 0.0% - 0.5% moderate low 0.5% - 1.5% highmoderatelow 1.5% - 4.0% highmoderatelow 4.0% - 7.0% lowvery low / none 7.0% - 15.0% very low / none > 15.0% very low / none Confined Stream Habitat Rating (valley width < 4x bank full width) Stream width 0 - 25 m25 - 50 m> 50 m Stream gradient 0.0% - 0.5% very low / nonelowvery low / none 0.5% - 1.5% low very low / none 1.5% - 4.0% low very low / none 4.0% - 7.0% very low / none 7.0% - 15.0% very low / none > 15.0% very low / none Weighted Habitat Area high = 1.0 x Bank full area moderate = 0.5 x Bank full area low = 0.25 x Bank full area very low / none = 0.0 x Bank full area Stream Habitat Rating Matrix (below natural barriers) Stream width (bankfull) 0 - 3 m3 - 50 m> 50 m Stream gradient 0.0 - 4.0%lowhighmoderate >4.0%low Puget Sound Interior Columbia (for comparison)

33. Est. mean ‘historic’ wild run size vs unblocked stream length

34. Spawner capacity estimates Assuming: 7.17 parr/100 m 2 0.0265 spnrs/parr (Gibbons et al. 1985)